Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

I actually had this *exact* same thing happen to me! I put up fliers, and I listed on craigslist, and someone found me from craigslist. It was a guy and we emailed a couple times, and he mentioned his daughter (but he never actually told me her name - first warning sign.) But the weirdest thing was how in his emails he didn't really talk about his daughter, he just talked a bit about how he was in a band and played the drums and stuff. So, OF COURSE I was no way going to let him in my house without at least meeting him in a public place first. So as it neared our appointed meeting time at a coffee shop, I emailed him again and very specifically was like, "Ok, so I'll see you and your daughter, and make sure she brings her old piano books so I can look at them," (hint hint...don't even think about coming without her!)

Well, after waiting 15 minutes past the decided time, he never showed, and never emailed again to apologize. I was GLAD.

a) people wildly overestimate some forms of risk, while under-appreciating much larger risks.

This is a well-researched fact that is not gender-specific.

b) My personal view that the thread is rather sad because so many people are expressing real fears that they are in danger in the normal pursuit of their professional activities. This is a comment on the current world.

And no, I wasn't saying anything specific about the OP's first post. In a sense, for her the barn door was opened by her method of advertising. Once you go beyond word of mouth you enter the regular commercial world. Because teachers tend to work in their home (or in someone else's home) they may face more risk than many other service providers who work in a public place. How much risk is a very subjective issue. What to do about it is yet another subjective call.

But even in the more public part of the service industry people take precautions. And again, it is sad that they feel compelled to do so. Ob-Gyns today often have a person (witness) in the room when they do an exam. [That person earns a salary, and it is part of the social cost of medicine]. This person is there in the room in large part to protect the physician against future legal claims that they abused a patient.

Piano*Dad, I have a question. This thread has been dead for some time. This morning Red Rose, who I assume is a female teacher, told us about her experience. It was concrete, factual, and I think useful. You followed her thread to respond, not to what she said, but to an old post by TimR. Was there a reason you did that? Why not respond to what was just posted which was real, non-speculative, pertinent and current? Might you want to do so now?

At this moment I am not interested in what research does, but in what we actually experience. The fact is that many private teachers will teach out of their own homes, where they are totally alone with someone on a regular basis. You do not have that as a professor, and being male, the risk is also not the same, though your risks might be different - such as being accused of things. These are practical considerations, and they are real. Those in such situations need to discuss them. Not via philosophical speculation or vague research with statistical results.

Red Rose had a very specific incident. She was contacted by someone saying he had a daughter, but only talking about himself, and when they were to meet to discuss lessons, he did not show up and definitely had no daughter to show.

People take precautions for other things, such as financial. There are downpayments, for example. I have twice done work for clients who then did not pay me, and learned the hard way to research your client and get unknown individuals to prepay for at least part of your work. Nobody would call this excessive. So why should other risks not be viewed the same way?

But it's always wise to step back and ask just how many knots do you want to tie yourself into in order to feel comfortable existing in this world of ever present risk.

I don't think that what red-rose did is anything close to tying herself into knots. It was reasonable and prudent. I know you were responding to TimR, but I'd like RR's post not to be lost.

I love it when men have a private conversation about something that mainly involves women.

The word clueless comes to mind.

Gary, I must agree. It's probably a rare thing where a man feels vulnerable or at risk for being violated. There are things women these days *must* do and think about on a daily basis to be vigilant. It's much better than the alternative.

I actually had this *exact* same thing happen to me! I put up fliers, and I listed on craigslist, and someone found me from craigslist. It was a guy and we emailed a couple times, and he mentioned his daughter (but he never actually told me her name - first warning sign.) But the weirdest thing was how in his emails he didn't really talk about his daughter, he just talked a bit about how he was in a band and played the drums and stuff. So, OF COURSE I was no way going to let him in my house without at least meeting him in a public place first. So as it neared our appointed meeting time at a coffee shop, I emailed him again and very specifically was like, "Ok, so I'll see you and your daughter, and make sure she brings her old piano books so I can look at them," (hint hint...don't even think about coming without her!)

Well, after waiting 15 minutes past the decided time, he never showed, and never emailed again to apologize. I was GLAD.

You were smart to meet in a public place and insist on the daughter being there.

Piano*Dad, I have a question. This thread has been dead for some time. This morning Red Rose, who I assume is a female teacher, told us about her experience. It was concrete, factual, and I think useful. You followed her thread to respond, not to what she said, but to an old post by TimR. Was there a reason you did that? Why not respond to what was just posted which was real, non-speculative, pertinent and current? Might you want to do so now?

Because I had not noticed that it was a retread thread. This is one of the dangers of bringing a thread back to life.

Piano*Dad, I have a question. This thread has been dead for some time. This morning Red Rose, who I assume is a female teacher, told us about her experience. It was concrete, factual, and I think useful. You followed her thread to respond, not to what she said, but to an old post by TimR. Was there a reason you did that? Why not respond to what was just posted which was real, non-speculative, pertinent and current? Might you want to do so now?

Because I had not noticed that it was a retread thread. This is one of the dangers of bringing a thread back to life.

It is also part of being clueless.

You are not listening to what women are saying in this thread. If that bothers you, tough. You did the man thing, barged in with a ton of cold logic and entirely failed to get the point.

The POINT is that women have a much harder time protecting themselves. But do continue with TimR, who is not even part of this conversation at present...

But it's always wise to step back and ask just how many knots do you want to tie yourself into in order to feel comfortable existing in this world of ever present risk.

I don't think that what red-rose did is anything close to tying herself into knots. It was reasonable and prudent. I know you were responding to TimR, but I'd like RR's post not to be lost.

I love it when men have a private conversation about something that mainly involves women.

The word clueless comes to mind.

Gary, I must agree. It's probably a rare thing where a man feels vulnerable or at risk for being violated. There are things women these days *must* do and think about on a daily basis to be vigilant. It's much better than the alternative.

You are absolutely correct. My wife is a level-headed as anyone can be, but I am bigger and stronger. I may not have more chance in a fight than she does, but someone will not guess that. And when I was younger I was very strong. I am just short of 6 feet tall, and I once leveled another guy in my 20s, put him in an emergency room with one punch - concussion.

And I am NOT proud of this. It was one of the most shameful things I have ever done. But I am here with my real name. If I were a woman, I would be using a pseudonym.

I do not know one woman who has not been stalked at least once just as a result of being part of a forum.

Women do not have equal rights. They may sometime in the future, but they get paid less, get listened to less and get taken advantage of more.

The glass ceiling is no illusion.

And for the record ANYONE who wants to challenge me on this issue will get a sharp reply. I will not back down. I have seen my wife treated as a second class person over and over again. The reason?

It seems to me she used her intuition (and no, that's not a female thing, Gary) and judgment. What else can we say. The guy may have been a creep. Who knows. When someone posts an experience like that, what is there really to say? "Nice going."

Wow. Until reading a thread like this, how easily one forgets that a great number of those posting here seem to (believe that they) have to cope with the paranoia of living in a dangerous, threatening, disintegrating, third-world country filled with drug-addled, psychopathic piano teacher slashers. Sad. Tragic.

It seems to me she used her intuition ....What else can we say. The guy may have been a creep.

I see it a somewhat different angle. I think that what I am countering is a general notion that we do things based on vague feelings and instincts, the extremes of which are being described as paranoia. There are many things that are done which have been well thought out and planned. Creating a budget so that you aren't caught out, locking your door before you leave the house, giving your students a test at the start of a semester (if you do) in order to see where they are before starting to teach, asking an unknown new client for prepayment. What Red Rose described is a logical strategy, and it is one that I have seen advised. That lifts it out of the vague rhealm of feelings and speculation, which is where you and TimR were heading earlier today.

In my freelance work, many of us are encountering the problem of distance work and ending up not being paid. So we have developed some strategies such as checking your customer's background, getting a partial prepayment, which we've found minimizes the risks. Here RR has told us things that she has done, which are also things I've seen recommended. For those in that situation (working alone in a private place) this may be a practical thing to consider.

I would put John v. d. Brooke's videocam in the same category. Through one decision he is able to provide his students with material to study when they get home, and protection against accusations which haunt male teachers in particular. It's the practical nature that seems interesting.

Wow. Until reading a thread like this, how easily one forgets that a great number of those posting here seem to (believe that they) have to cope with the paranoia of living in a dangerous, threatening, disintegrating, third-world country filled with drug-addled, psychopathic piano teacher slashers. Sad. Tragic.

What kinds of communities are these?

Right. Like the massacre that just took place in Boston was in a third world country...

People who teach privately often do so in their own homes. Some of them are women, and some do not live with anyone else.

Wow. Until reading a thread like this, how easily one forgets that a great number of those posting here seem to (believe that they) have to cope with the paranoia of living in a dangerous, threatening, disintegrating, third-world country filled with drug-addled, psychopathic piano teacher slashers. Sad. Tragic.

What kinds of communities are these?

And what kind of poster on a forum thinks that it's wise for women to not think about these things that happen EVERY DAY? One does not have to be in the third-world country to get raped or murdered. How dare you equate a woman being smart about who she does business with for her own safety with someone who suffers from paranoia?

What is sad and tragic is that you think you can get away with saying such things.

Wow. Until reading a thread like this, how easily one forgets that a great number of those posting here seem to (believe that they) have to cope with the paranoia of living in a dangerous, threatening, disintegrating, third-world country filled with drug-addled, psychopathic piano teacher slashers. Sad. Tragic.

Today's post involved a female teacher who received a response from a man who said he had a daughter, but only talked about himself, and failed to show up for the meeting in which he was asked to bring his daughter.

Are you doing the reductio ad absurdum tactic of turning this very rational thing into the kinds of ridiculous things that you have listed?

A simple question: When you leave the house, do you lock the door? That's a rational precaution. So is meeting a questionable individual in a public place.

Final thought: if the WOMEN in this thread and on PW think I am wrong, if the world is a whole lot more equal and fair to both men and women than I think, I'll apologize to everyone.

I don't think a single woman said that.

There is also the lovely thing that if women respond with emotion, then everyone knows that they are irrational and emotion. Maybe the newer generation can let go (I honestly don't know) but for some of us some things are rather ingrained.

My biggest effort was to get Red Rose acknowledged, and not trivialized or swept under the rug. Her actions were professional. They should be seen as such! If she is trivialized, then everyone is.

Your side of it is appreciated, and a guy not being silent on these things is very important.

It seems to me she used her intuition ....What else can we say. The guy may have been a creep.

I see it a somewhat different angle. I think that what I am countering is a general notion that we do things based on vague feelings and instincts, the extremes of which are being described as paranoia. There are many things that are done which have been well thought out and planned. Creating a budget so that you aren't caught out, locking your door before you leave the house, giving your students a test at the start of a semester (if you do) in order to see where they are before starting to teach, asking an unknown new client for prepayment. What Red Rose described is a logical strategy, and it is one that I have seen advised. That lifts it out of the vague rhealm of feelings and speculation, which is where you and TimR were heading earlier today.

I hear you. But let's examine exactly what Red Rose said ...

Originally Posted By: Red Rose

It was a guy and we emailed a couple times, and he mentioned his daughter (but he never actually told me her name - first warning sign.) But the weirdest thing was how in his emails he didn't really talk about his daughter, he just talked a bit about how he was in a band and played the drums and stuff. So, OF COURSE I was no way going to let him in my house without at least meeting him in a public place first.

First, let me say that RR's approach here seems quite sensible. But from what she said, this Starbucks approach for a first meeting is NOT her general policy. She did it in this case because she sensed something amiss.

That is why I said that these kind of experiences are hard to comment upon, beyond the usual forum "head nodding" in agreement. What lesson do I learn? Well, I learn that if I feel that a person is suspicious, based on what they say in emails or phone calls, that I should not let them into my house. OK, I think most of us knew that already.

Should all preliminary business be conducted in the local Starbucks? That to me is a more interesting question. The fact that many people feel the need to do this suggests a number of things:

1. It's a sad commentary on the state of society that women feel such risk.

Gary's shorts were in such a twist about my seeming lack of empathy for female second-class status (where on earth did he get that from what I posted, one wonders) that he did not acknowledge that I actually said that.

2. It's a serious cost in peoples' time if they do it as a general policy.

Do teachers think they learn enough in a Starbucks meeting to take a student? I doubt it. That demands a second meeting in the home to get the student into something approximating the lesson format.

But Red Rose did not say that this was her general policy. Maybe it is, but that did not come across in the post.

There is also the lovely thing that if women respond with emotion, then everyone knows that they are irrational and emotion. Maybe the newer generation can let go (I honestly don't know) but for some of us some things are rather ingrained.

This is a very hot-button issue to me. I see men debate some of the things I believe you are touching upon as if it does not touch them, and I think there are many men who are not touched.

But Red Rose did not say that this was her general policy. Maybe it is, but that did not come across in the post.

Who cares? She can do whatever she wants, and it doesn't have to be in her policy.

If she gets weirded out by a potential student or parent, then she has every right to make a judgment call. If the guy and daughter turned out OK, then I'm sure she would want to see the girl at her studio to give her a thorough check through.

Any guy who would begrudge a woman doing this probably isn't right for her studio anyways.

But Red Rose did not say that this was her general policy. Maybe it is, but that did not come across in the post.

Who cares? She can do whatever she wants, and it doesn't have to be in her policy.

If she gets weirded out by a potential student or parent, then she has every right to make a judgment call. If the guy and daughter turned out OK, then I'm sure she would want to see the girl at her studio to give her a thorough check through.

Any guy who would begrudge a woman doing this probably isn't right for her studio anyways.

But Red Rose did not say that this was her general policy. Maybe it is, but that did not come across in the post.

Who cares? She can do whatever she wants, and it doesn't have to be in her policy.

If she gets weirded out by a potential student or parent, then she has every right to make a judgment call. If the guy and daughter turned out OK, then I'm sure she would want to see the girl at her studio to give her a thorough check through.

Any guy who would begrudge a woman doing this probably isn't right for her studio anyways.

Please tell me where I said she can't do what she wants? Please tell me where I said that she doesn't have the right "to make a judgment call."

Please read what I wrote and stop treating people as the enemy because you presume you know their deepest attitudes. Frankly, I'm getting sick of being smeared because of other peoples' hot buttons. Your hot button doesn't give you the right to condescend or to deliberately misread.

But Red Rose did not say that this was her general policy. Maybe it is, but that did not come across in the post.

Who cares? She can do whatever she wants, and it doesn't have to be in her policy.

If she gets weirded out by a potential student or parent, then she has every right to make a judgment call. If the guy and daughter turned out OK, then I'm sure she would want to see the girl at her studio to give her a thorough check through.

Any guy who would begrudge a woman doing this probably isn't right for her studio anyways.

Thank you, Gary. Another person who lacks the decency even to read what I wrote.

I was not paying that much attention to the other dialogue since I had started one just before and wanted that point to come across. But I can see that objection and its reasons which you must have missed. Your first comment was about people "tying themselves into knots", and the second was about people "wildly overestimating some forms of risk". if this was in response to what the posting teacher had just said, then it seemed to trivialize them and make them seem silly. Probably closer to the truth is that you missed that post or only half-read it. Yet I find it an important post, because it dealt with a real experience.

Going on:

Originally Posted By: Piano*Dad

First, let me say that RR's approach here seems quite sensible. But from what she said, this Starbucks approach for a first meeting is NOT her general policy. She did it in this case because she sensed something amiss.

A business policy will have precautions in place for certain circumstances. In the analogy from my present profession, most of us accept payment after rendering service and bill clients afterward, but for clients who present red flags prepayment is recommended. This is a distinction from making decisions based on "feelings" with wild over- and underestimations. Most businesses create checklists or things to watch for.

Quote:

Should all preliminary business be conducted in the local Starbucks? That to me is a more interesting question.....

2. It's a serious cost in peoples' time if they do it as a general policy.

Do teachers think they learn enough in a Starbucks meeting to take a student? I doubt it. That demands a second meeting in the home to get the student into something approximating the lesson format.

I run a business where the projects I do are relatively short term, some taking a day, and others taking a few weeks at most. Teachers forge a business relationship that lasts years. One important thing that I learned in running a business is that the preliminary preparation you do has a major effect even though it doesn't bring in any money. If you land in a mess because you didn't check things out, it is costly and time consuming. So if an extra step is needed where the situation suggests it, then this is not a "cost on people's time" - more like a prudent business expense.

For the last part of your question, the piano teachers might be able to answer that. I think that a fair bit can actually be learned over a cup of coffee.

I'm not sure exactly what we're "debating" here. Is it, "Does RR have a good business policy?" Got me. I haven't seen it laid out as a business policy. RR didn't discuss it that way.

Is it, "can one rationalize the Starbucks approach "for occasional potential clients who rub you the wrong way over the phone" as a good formal business approach? Yeah, sure, I guess. That seems pretty obvious to me.

I'm not sure anyone in this benighted thread is pondering either point. We're getting things like, "if she feels weirded out ..." That sounds rather like a "feeling" to me. And that's not something that is easy for one person to communicate to another, which is why I said a while back that experiential posts often just get a group hug or a collective head nodding in approval. Yes, if someone feels weirded out, by all means ask to meet the weirding one in advance, over coffee. Heck, I said that was very sensible of RR. It's sensible policy for anyone.